Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1887-01-29
SERVING TWO MASTERS.
The Railroad Attorney Bill Still
Troubling the Henate.

The Railroad Attorney Bill Still
troubling the senate.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S.--At . O'Clock
to-day the Senate proceeded to considera-
tjon of the bill to prohibit members of
Congress from acting as attorneys or en-
plOyes for railroad companies holding
charters or having received grants of lands
or pecuniary aid from the United States,
and Mr.. Berry addressed the Senate in
advocacy of the bill. He did not believe
that a Senator or member drawing $40, 900
or $4,000 a year from the Union Pacific
or Northern Pacific Railroad Company
could act and vote mpartially on the Pa
cfic funding bill or on the Northern Pa
cItic land aud forfeiture bill.
Mr.. TELLER's ATTITUDE.
Mr.. Teller said that he was prepared to
vote against the bill notwithstanding
newspaper clamor. and Notwithstanding
the effort made to attract attention to the
fact that the Senate was a body of law
yers, and the charge that the Senators
were dev0tng to the practice of law for
railroad corporations time which they
should devote to the public service. For
himself he believed that public con-
tdence in Congress would be largely
promoted by members abstaining from
employment OF that character, but he
argued that men who came to Congress
did not therefore give up their business
and profession.
OPPOSED TO BOTH.
He was opposed both to the original
bill MIR. Beck's) and to the substitute
reported for 1t. HI believed that the sub
stllute was not quite so good as the
original bill, and If he were to choose be-
tween them he would prefer the original
bill.
Mr.. Wilson, of Maryland, madean argu-
ment in favor of the original bill, which
he regarded as exercise OF the undOubted
power Of Congress to pass laws regulating
the conduct of members. Never before.
he said, was there a complication of cir
cumstances more imperauvely calling for
such legislation.
MR.. CALLS OPPOSITION.
Mr.. Call argued against the bill. The
question which it presented was, he said.
as to whether the Senate could be trusted
to preserve Its purity and character The
bill affirmed tbat it could not be. unless
the Senate said that it was so corrupt
that it could not be trusted to expel dis
honorable members. This legislation was
unnecessary, ana it opened up the posi-
bility that it might be used in the interest
Of great concentrated power to destroy
the power OF the people by allowing Sen
atOrs to be indicted and tried be-
fore judges and juries, and the
fact was that there were more
judges IN the employment Of railroad
companies than there were Senators or
Representatives.
A HIDDEN REASON.
Mr.. Morgan argued that if there was
any good ground for the passage of the
bill tAat ground should be stated, and an
opportunity should be given to the Senate
to eXpel any Senator guilty OF the oiTense
against which the bill was aimed. 1t
looked to him as if the bill of the Senator
from Kentucky had been gotten up in
hurry. 1t looked as if it were born in
heat and Indignation, or perhaps under
the pressure OF public clamOr.
The debate was further continued bv
Messrs, Piatt, Hoar, Call, Morgan, Beck
and others but no action was raaohad